Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

hungrywing said:
Apparently not, judging by some comments above.



I remember gambit saying in the Batman thread that the filmmakers were combining several of the more famous storylines from the comics. Seems like what happened is they handpicked the 'big events' from those stories without then going through the grueling work and tough decisions involved in weaving them into a single story. It's no accident regarding the number of people who felt big moments like the villain reveal, the 'new bat signal', are a bit off to say the least. One definitely gets the feeling they didn't go that extra mile.

To be brutally fair it's not an easy thing to do, especially in screenwriting where not only does the usual "every decision you make affects almost everything else" still apply, but you're also burdened with limited real estate that is the 'two hour' box.

Of course on the other hand there's the "If you're going to be that ambitious, you'd better be able to deliver in spades," angle.
Click to expand...

Can one be "brutally fair"?

Can't believe that Wibble got so much stick for having an opinion.
I think he gave it a 2, is probably influenced by the OTT adoration espoused by the fans. I agree with him and did the same when I saw Inception in the IMDB top ten.
There are many reasons not to like TDKR. Flimsy, simplistic plot, one dimensional bad guy, hours of inaction (not only set piece wise, but in plot development terms)
There seems to be a lack of reasons put forward by the pro-TDKR group.
"It's great! (but I can't give a reason why)"

Movie appreciation is subjective, and there will always be differing opinions. Who is anybody to say, who is right or wrong?
TDKR will divide opinion, in a way a true great like Jaws, The Godfather or Casablanca won't, because it did not have what it takes to satisfy "in it's own right", and in my case, even as part of the trilogy.
 
verminater said:
Movie appreciation is subjective, and there will always be differing opinions. Who is anybody to say, who is right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Amen to that.

I really enjoyed TDKR, but I don't really mind that people found it shite. I used to get really annoyed a few years back, when I saw a film I loved and someone disagreed, and tried to argue why I believed it was brilliant. It's stupid really, cos there's nothing that we're going to say that's suddenly going to make Wibble think "aaaah right yeah sure, indeed it's brilliant". If he didn't enjoy, well he didn't enjoy and it doesn't really matter deep down. As long as we can share what we enjoyed about so and so film, try and give an opinion (not trying to forcefeed it to anyone, but just chat about it) in a respectful manner, well I think we'll all agree that's what this thread is about.

I think maybe the "uproar" (strong term!) came from the loving of the picture that people have and the very low rating given here. As for the rating system, I agree it's a pretty solid one (trying to rate according to your perception of how well the director achieved what he set out to do), but it's not necessarily the only one or, I suppose, the best one for an internet forum, and from what I've read on here, it's not unanimously used, which could of been confusing. I try not to give ratings most of the time, for a couple of reasons: I'm not a fan of them as, well as the previous page has shown, they're extremely subjective, I could give a film a certain mark one day and want to change the next, but also because I think it leads to a bit of laziness. People tend to just attach importance to the number you've given the film, I like to talk about a picture, say what I liked, why I think it's worthy of being seen or what to take from it, and with marks, I know a lot of people maybe just skim through that.
 
verminater said:
Movie appreciation is subjective, and there will always be differing opinions. Who is anybody to say, who is right or wrong?
TDKR will divide opinion, in a way a true great like Jaws, The Godfather or Casablanca won't, because it did not have what it takes to satisfy "in it's own right", and in my case, even as part of the trilogy.
Click to expand...

You kind of undermine your point by saying "everything's subjective...except these films that I say aren't subjective. Thus my opinion's right."

Way to ....something.
 
Mockney said:
You kind of undermine your point by saying "everything's subjective...except these films that I say aren't subjective. Thus my opinion's right."

Way to ....something.
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, that is not what I was aiming for. I don't think I am.
Some films are widely regarded as classics, because there are very few who disagree with the status which they have attained.
The Dark Knight Rises will not be one of them.
It will fit in somewhere along the "cult" line.

Happy now, Mr Pedantic?
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Amen to that.

I really enjoyed TDKR, but I don't really mind that people found it shite. I used to get really annoyed a few years back, when I saw a film I loved and someone disagreed, and tried to argue why I believed it was brilliant. It's stupid really, cos there's nothing that we're going to say that's suddenly going to make Wibble think "aaaah right yeah sure, indeed it's brilliant". If he didn't enjoy, well he didn't enjoy and it doesn't really matter deep down. As long as we can share what we enjoyed about so and so film, try and give an opinion (not trying to forcefeed it to anyone, but just chat about it) in a respectful manner, well I think we'll all agree that's what this thread is about.

I think maybe the "uproar" (strong term!) came from the loving of the picture that people have and the very low rating given here. As for the rating system, I agree it's a pretty solid one (trying to rate according to your perception of how well the director achieved what he set out to do), but it's not necessarily the only one or, I suppose, the best one for an internet forum, and from what I've read on here, it's not unanimously used, which could of been confusing. I try not to give ratings most of the time, for a couple of reasons: I'm not a fan of them as, well as the previous page has shown, they're extremely subjective, I could give a film a certain mark one day and want to change the next, but also because I think it leads to a bit of laziness. People tend to just attach importance to the number you've given the film, I like to talk about a picture, say what I liked, why I think it's worthy of being seen or what to take from it, and with marks, I know a lot of people maybe just skim through that.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Like I said. I have, on occasion scored films overly high, and overly low, dependent on the scores others have given (to ridiculously express the strength of my disagreement, and in the hope of imparting some balance).

Honestly TDKR, I would probably give a 6.5, but after being told how fantastic it was, I was disappointed enough to give a 4.
 
verminater said:
If I understand you correctly, that is not what I was aiming for. I don't think I am.
Some films are widely regarded as classics, because there are very few who disagree with the status which they have attained.
The Dark Knight Rises will not be one of them.
It will fit in somewhere along the "cult" line.
Click to expand...

Again, that's subjective. A lot of people think Casablanca has dated very badly, and both it and Jaws hold a lower rating on IMDB than The Dark Knight Rises. 8.7 & 8.2 respectively to TDKR's 8.8.

Now, this isn't definitive of anything, but it does go against your opinion that those films are in a widely held firmly objective bracket of greatness above TDKR. IMDB may be a bad barometer of greatness, but it is a barometer of public opinion, which is what you were using to bolster your point about un-objective classics.

Now, I personally think Jaws shits on TDKR from a great height as a piece of important cinema, but that wasn't what I was illustrating.

My point was you went half hog in your appeal to subjectiveness when it was a defence of Wibble's bad rating, but you wouldn't go the whole hog when it required the support of an excellent rating.

Essentially saying, in a backhanded kind of a way, "we're subjectively right in giving it a bad mark, but you can't be subjectively right if you think it's amazing"

Ya get me blud?

Happy now, Mr Pedantic?
Click to expand...

Always.
 
Yes and the best film according to their ratings is the Shawshank Redemption. I trust no one really pays that much attention to the ratings on that website.
 
The Shawshank Redemption is massively overrated syrupy rubbish. I'd rather watch TDKR over that all day long, any day of the week. But then there's a wide consensus that it's one of the greatest ever and a modern classic. So I guess I'm fecked.

As it happens, I was arguing exactly the same thing as him with someone in the Radiohead thread about 3 days ago - that you can actually claim certain things are objectively better than others - but then again, you can't use the "hey, everything's subjective" argument to back up your opinion with one hand, and then use the "but then again, no it isn't" to confirm it on the other. That's having your cake & eating it. Or having your argument & caking it. Or having your cock & eating it. Or something.
 
I think TDKR will end up being regarded as a classic but also one that once the hype dies down, people will start to knitpick and wonder why it was so highly rated at the time.
 
I think there was a massive campaign to get the mediocre SR to the top of the list. I mean, Christ, that's what Liverpool fans do... By this I don't mean they spend their time on the net voting for SR.
 
I saw Skyfall last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. I think it's the first Bond film I've seen at the theater since the Pierce Brosnan one where they were on that massive space ship boat, which was absolutely awful.

Think I'll go back and watch Casino Royale and Quantum Solace now.
 
I don't think TDKR would end up being classed as a classic at all. TDK might be, due to Ledger's performance. Looking at Bardem in Skyfall, a lot of other villains are going to be based on Ledger's take of Joker in coming decades. These imitations are just going add more prestige to that performance, already revered due to it being his last proper performance.

Coming to TDKR I don't agree with Wibble's take on it. I would probably go along with Brwned's. He summed up nicely. I did not like TDKR as much as many but did not think it was boring persay. Plot holes were very annoying though.
 
R.N7 said:
I think TDKR will end up being regarded as a classic but also one that once the hype dies down, people will start to knitpick and wonder why it was so highly rated at the time.
Click to expand...

The trilogy certainly will be, and so by association it's bound to. The actual hype of the film has already started to die down, and people who loved it will probably re-evaluate it as a 7.5 rather than a 9. But then in about 10 years time that'll just be replaced by trilogy association hype, in the way that some people seem to think Temple of Doom or Back to the Future III are great films, without really thinking about it, and it'll be back up to an 8.5 for the 10 year anniversary complete trilogy DVD release.
 
I thought TDKR was the weakest of the three, Batman Begins is a much better film. It's almost like it built upon its hype after TDK and everyone just automatically came to this conclusion that it was amazing, despite being all over the place and full of silliness.
 
forevrared said:
I saw Skyfall last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. I think it's the first Bond film I've seen at the theater since the Pierce Brosnan one where they were on that massive space ship boat, which was absolutely awful.

Think I'll go back and watch Casino Royale and Quantum Solace now.
Click to expand...

Casino Royale is excellent and just what a Bond film should be , Quantum is OK, but I think one of the poorer Bond films.
 
I haven't watched TDK. Can someone tell me what is so good, and original, about Ledger's performance, please?
 
Once Upon A Time in Anatolia - A police convoy drives around the Anatolian steppe looking for a dead body. The perpetrator has trouble recalling where he buried it and some of the tired policemen start pondering their work and their lifes. Casual conversations are mixed with more ambiguous ones, and there's constantly an ambiguity about the crime itself. Most scenes are played out in real time and it's really a police procedural film at heart. A police procedural Tarkovsky you could say but not quite as overwhelmingly mystical and Ceylan is looking more at the smaller truths in life. It is very long and I think it's a film that non-arthouse viewers should approach it with caution. I enjoyed watching the film but looking back there weren't really that many parts that I recall liking that much, but it was a nice cerebral ride. I did however really like the doctor and his solemn realization about his own life...I will have to think about it a bit more.
 
R.N7 said:
Once Upon A Time in Anatolia - A police convoy drives around the Anatolian steppe looking for a dead body. The perpetrator has trouble recalling where he buried it and some of the tired policemen start pondering their work and their lifes. Casual conversations are mixed with more ambiguous ones, and there's constantly an ambiguity about the crime itself. Most scenes are played out in real time and it's really a police procedural film at heart. A police procedural Tarkovsky you could say but not quite as overwhelmingly mystical and Ceylan is looking more at the smaller truths in life. It is very long and I think it's a film that non-arthouse viewers should approach it with caution. I enjoyed watching the film but looking back there weren't really that many parts that I recall liking that much, but it was a nice cerebral ride. I did however really like the doctor and his solemn realization about his own life...I will have to think about it a bit more.
Click to expand...

Excellent write up.

. . . enjoyed watching the film but looking back there weren't really that many parts that I recall liking that much, but it was a nice cerebral ride.

You put the wording in my head of something I couldn't really quite describe before, and the three films of Ceylan's I've seen all leave me feeling similar. Good one. Also liked the doctor very much, and the beginning scene of the film.
 
Anatolia has it's moments and I thought it generally worked, up untill the sun comes up. Though the characters, situations and dialogue often felt a little artificial and stilted. The scene with the apple and the meticulous way the film is made, just added to this stagey feeling. I didn't think the frequent narrative breaks did the film any favours either. That said, I couldn't fault the competency of the film making. It certainly impresses on a technical level.
 
Grinner said:
It'll be in Welsh cinemas next year...can't you just wait a bit longer?
Click to expand...

:lol:

Alas, we have no coal for the projector; so it'll be 2024 at the earliest.
 
Nobby style said:
Excellent write up.

. . . enjoyed watching the film but looking back there weren't really that many parts that I recall liking that much, but it was a nice cerebral ride.

You put the wording in my head of something I couldn't really quite describe before, and the three films of Ceylan's I've seen all leave me feeling similar. Good one. Also liked the doctor very much, and the beginning scene of the film.
Click to expand...

dumbo said:
Anatolia has it's moments and I thought it generally worked, up untill the sun comes up. Though the characters, situations and dialogue often felt a little artificial and stilted. The scene with the apple and the meticulous way the film is made, just added to this stagey feeling. I didn't think the frequent narrative breaks did the film any favours either. That said, I couldn't fault the competency of the film making. It certainly impresses on a technical level.
Click to expand...

It was a worthwhile but perhaps in the end forgettable experience.
 
one of the ladies here at work saw the new Abraham Lincoln movie and said it was more like a History Channel program than a Hollywood movie.

so this looks to be yet another flick that I'll catch once it's on DVD.
 
Mockney said:
The Shawshank Redemption is massively overrated syrupy rubbish. I'd rather watch TDKR over that all day long, any day of the week. But then there's a wide consensus that it's one of the greatest ever and a modern classic. So I guess I'm fecked.

As it happens, I was arguing exactly the same thing as him with someone in the Radiohead thread about 3 days ago - that you can actually claim certain things are objectively better than others - but then again, you can't use the "hey, everything's subjective" argument to back up your opinion with one hand, and then use the "but then again, no it isn't" to confirm it on the other. That's having your cake & eating it. Or having your argument & caking it. Or having your cock & eating it. Or something.
Click to expand...

I'm a massive fan of Shawshank Redemption myself and think it's a great film, but it's fans are what make it annoying. Instead of seeing it as a great movie, they insist it's far beyond any piece of cinema that's ever been made. A while back I was talking with a couple of people who love it. I said that I preferred The Godfather, they pretty much dismissed it as a very good gangster flick, and told me that Shawshank shits on any piece on film that's ever been made. It's one of those films which is great, in my opinion, but people sometimes hate it more because of it's insufferable fans.
 
Shawshank was an entertaining film with good actors. Quite why it has moved to the top of any list is beyond me. I suppose you will get odd looking results when rating alone is used since you are rating against the type of film and not comparing films directly against each other.
 
The Lincoln Lawyer

Not bad. Not bad at all. The dialogue was a bit meh but the general idea behin the film was good. Matthew McConaughey acts his arse off and makes the movie work all on his own. Dome parts were done too quickly, but overall a good movie.

7/10
 
Slevs said:
The Lincoln Lawyer

Not bad. Not bad at all. The dialogue was a bit meh but the general idea behin the film was good. Matthew McConaughey acts his arse off and makes the movie work all on his own. Dome parts were done too quickly, but overall a good movie.

7/10
Click to expand...

I enjoyed this far more than I thought I would . You're right about McConaghy- I didn't know he had it in himn
 
McConaughey has surprised me with a few of his recent roles, never really rated him, but thought he was really amazing in Killer Joe. One of the best actor performances of the year.
 
Mockney said:
Again, that's subjective. A lot of people think Casablanca has dated very badly,
(a black and white film with mono soundtrack, made 70 years ago, during wartime, has dated, according to the internet generation? Who'd have thunk it?)
and both it and Jaws hold a lower rating on IMDB than The Dark Knight Rises. 8.7 & 8.2 respectively to TDKR's 8.8.
(According to the internet generation)

Now, this isn't definitive of anything, but it does go against your opinion that those films are in a widely held firmly objective bracket of greatness above TDKR.
(I never said this, and only time will tell. My view of if it will, is no guarantee either way)
IMDB may be a bad barometer of greatness, but it is a barometer of public opinion, which is what you were using to bolster your point about un-objective classics.
(IMDB has a young demographic, and a small number of young people will watch old movies, with their lack of CGI and fast editing, retrospectively.)

Now, I personally think Jaws shits on TDKR from a great height as a piece of important cinema, but that wasn't what I was illustrating.

My point was you went half hog in your appeal to subjectiveness when it was a defence of Wibble's bad rating, but you wouldn't go the whole hog when it required the support of an excellent rating.
(I don't even know what this paragraph means.)


Essentially saying, in a backhanded kind of a way, "we're subjectively right in giving it a bad mark, but you can't be subjectively right if you think it's amazing"
(But that is not what I was saying. Appealing for subjectivity to be acknowledged does not deprive me of ever having an opinion, just as those who loved the film have the right to say so. I merely expressed MY belief that there is far too much wrong with TDKR, for it to be remembered as a classic.)

Ya get me blud?
Click to expand...


(That's my view, and if it don't fly with you, then I'm so, so, very sorry!:()
 
EricaNo7 said:
I enjoyed this far more than I thought I would . You're right about McConaghy- I didn't know he had it in himn
Click to expand...


Same here, I always though he'd be the usual guy in romantic comedies. Never had any idea he'd perform like he did in this one.

Rooney in Paris said:
McConaughey has surprised me with a few of his recent roles, never really rated him, but thought he was really amazing in Killer Joe. One of the best actor performances of the year.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I heard a lot about that. Everyone is praising him for his work in that movie. I'll have to watch it soon.
 
EricaNo7 said:
I enjoyed this far more than I thought I would . You're right about McConaghy- I didn't know he had it in himn
Click to expand...

I found him quite annoying initially, then I thought he was good as the film stretched on.
 
Chernobyl Diaries

This should of been a very good Horror film, given that the back drop was Chernobyl and the abandoned town next to it, but it was not, it was a very poor effort.
The story was the usual fair of, a group of people go to where they should not and something nasty happens to them, been done so many times and much better than this.
There was no horror in it, well none that scared me, very weak cast, that were really bad at acting.
It barley kept me interested till the end, I was hoping for much better.

2/10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.